Kali Charan Singh @ Kaliya vs The State Of Jharkhand
2022 Latest Caselaw 3033 Jhar

               Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 86 of 2016
[Against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated
14.10.2015    (sentence passed    on   15.10.2015)    passed  by
Sri Peeyush Kumar, learned Additional Sessions Judge - V, East
Singhbhum, Jamshedpur in Sessions Trial No. 323 of 2010]
                           ...........

Kali Charan Singh @ Kaliya                ... ... Appellant
                         Versus
The State of Jharkhand                 ... ... Respondent
                           ...........
For the Appellant             : Md. Zaid Ahmed, Advocate
For the State                 : Mr. Vishwanath Roy, A.P.P.
                        PRESENT
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
             HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMBUJ NATH
                           ...........
C.A.V. on 05.07.2022              Pronounced on 04.08.2022

Heard Md. Zaid Ahmed, learned counsel for the appellant and Vishwanath Roy, learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 14.10.2015 (sentence passed on 15.10.2015) passed by Sri Peeyush Kumar, learned Additional Sessions Judge - V, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur in Sessions Trial No. 323 of 2010, whereby and whereunder, the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life along with a fine of Rs. 5,000/-.

3. The Fardbeyan of Sushil Singh was recorded at Narega village on 24.05.2010 at 05:30 a.m. in which it has been stated that on 23.05.2010 at about 07:30 p.m. his younger brother Kalicharan Singh @ Kaliya (appellant) who drives the truck of Laxmi Narayan Sharma @ Munib had come to the village with his truck and had parked the truck in front of his house. After some time, the owner of the truck came on a motorcycle and his brother demanded some money from the truck owner which was refused at which his brother who was in an intoxicated condition started abusing Laxmi Narayan Sharma @ Munib. He, thereafter assaulted Laxmi Narayan Sharma @ Munib with a Dabli causing injuries to him and when the brother of the informant namely Sambhu Singh intervened, he was also assaulted and Sambhu Singh died at the spot. Laxmi Narayan Sharma @ Munib who suffered injuries was being treated at TMH, Jamshedpur.

-2- Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 86 of 2016

Based on the aforesaid allegations Mango (M.G.M.) P. S. Case No. 216 of 2010 was instituted against Kalicharan Singh @ Kaliya for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 324, 307 of the Indian Penal Code. On conclusion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against Kalicharan Singh @ Kaliya under Sections 302, 324, 307 of the Indian Penal Code. After cognizance was taken, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions where it was registered as S.T. No. 323 of 2010. Charge was framed against the accused for the offences under Sections 307 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code which was read over and explained to the accused in Hindi to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. The prosecution has examined as many as eight witnesses in support of its case.

5. P.W.1 (Sushil Singh) is the informant who has deposed that his younger brother Sambhu Singh was assaulted by Kaliya with a Dabli indiscriminately which resulted in his death. He had witnessed the assault with Dabli and Kaliya had fled away after the assault. Previously also both used to quarrel and threat was given of committing his murder.

In cross-examination, he has stated that the incident is of 07:00 p.m. and it was dark at that point of time. He had seen the occurrence from a distance of five hands. After the incident his statement was recorded by the police. He has stated that both used to quarrel under the influence of liquor.

6. P.W.2 (Usha Singh) has deposed that she had witnessed the assault committed by Kaliya with a Dabli on Sambhu Singh. It was evening though darkness had not fully set in. Apart from her Durga Singh and Sushil Singh had seen the occurrence.

In cross-examination, she has deposed that the incident took place at 07:00 p.m. and although the sun had set but still there was sufficient light. Both Kaliya and Sambhu had taken alcohol and both were squabbling for long and when the assault had taken place she was present. Her house is adjacent to the house of Kaliya. When she rushed to the place of occurrence on hearing the cry of alarm she had witnessed the assault. When she intervened, she was forced to flee.

7. P.W.3 (Durga Singh) has deposed that Sambhu Singh was

-3- Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 86 of 2016

murdered by his brother Kaliya with a Dabli. She does not know the reason for the feud or the reason for the assault.

In cross-examination, she has stated that at the time of the occurrence she was in her house and when she came out she had seen Kaliya committing assault upon Sambhu Singh and when she intervened she was also threatened forcing her to flee out of fear.

8. P.W.4 (Ravindra Nath Patro) has not supported the case of the prosecution and has been declared hostile by the prosecution.

9. P.W.5 (Naresh Goswami) has proved his signature in the inquest report which has been marked as Exhibit - 1. He does not know who had committed the murder. This witness has also been declared hostile by the prosecution.

10. P.W.6 (Dr. A. Srinivas Rao) was posted as a tutor in the Department of Forensic Medicine, M.G.M. Medical College Hospital and on 24.05.2010 he had conducted autopsy on the dead body of Sambhu Singh and had found the following:-

"External injuries

1. abrasion 3cm x 1 cm over right side of the face.

2. Laceration of 1cmx 1cm x bone deep just below right angle of mouth.

3. Laceration 1cm x 1 cm x skin deep 1cm x 1cm x skin deep over left side of the face.

4. Abrasion 1 cm x 1cm over left side of face.

5. Incised wound 11cm x 3 cm x muscle deep over left side of the neck from 5 cm below left ear pinna to midline of the neck.

6. Incised wound 3 cmx 1 ½ cm x neck deep over left side of the neck below lower part of it. Pinna.

7. Linear abrasion - 6 cm in length present over left side of the neck.

8. Linear abrasion - 8 cm in length over left lower part of the neck.

9. Laceration 2 cmx 1 ½ cm x skin deep over top of the left shoulder.

10. Abrasion 2 cm x 1 cm over left elbow.

11. Abrasion 1 cm x 1 cm, 1 cm x 1 cm over left knee.

12. Abrasion 3 cm x 1 cm over upper part of outer aspect of right leg.

13. Abrasion 5 cm x 1 cm over left back chest.

Internal injuries

1. Incised cut of neck sin muscles and blood vessels (underlying neck structures).

2. Contusion of neck muscle of left side.

3. Contusion of whole neck muscle around trachea.

-4- Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 86 of 2016

4. Contusion of left frontal region of scalp.

5. Contusion of left parietal lobe of brain." He has proved the postmortem report which has been marked as Exhibit - 2. As per his opinion injury nos. 5, 6, 7 and 8 were caused by sharp cutting pointed weapon while injury nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 9 to 12 were caused by hard and blunt substance. The cause of death was opined to be due to shock and hemorrhage.

11. P.W. 7 (Kalika Ram) is the Investigating Officer who has proved the Fardbeyan of Sushil Singh which has been marked as Exhibit -

3. He has also identified the signature of the Officer In-charge M.G.M. P.S. namely Nizamuddin in the formal FIR which has been proved and marked as Exhibit - 4. He has also proved the inquest report which has been prepared by him and bears his signature and which has been marked as Exhibit - 5. He has proved his writing and signature on the seizure list which has been marked as Exhibit

- 6. The confessional statement of the accused except the signature of the accused has been proved and marked as Exhibit - 7. He had taken over the investigation of the case on 24.05.2010. He had firstly recorded the statement of Sushil Singh and, thereafter, prepared the inquest report of Sambhu Singh. He had subsequently recorded the restatement of the informant and had also recorded the statements of the witnesses Usha Singh and Durga Singh. The place of occurrence was inspected by him which is at village Narega in a vacant place between the house of Nandu Singh and a well. He had, thereafter, come back to the police station and registered the case and had once again returned to the place of occurrence and recorded the statement of Rabindra Nath Patro and Naresh Gosawmi. On 26.05.2010 on a confidential information, the accused was arrested and his confessional statement recorded. On the pointing out of the accused a 16 inches long iron Dabli was seized. He had also obtained the postmortem report and had thereafter recorded the statement of the injured Laxmi Narayan Sharma and had also prepared a requisition for sending him for treatment which has been proved and marked as Exhibit - 8. On completion of investigation, he had submitted charge sheet against Kalicharan Singh @ Kaliya.

In cross-examination he has deposed that on the confession of

-5- Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 86 of 2016

the co-accused a Dabli was recovered from inside the bushes. The Dabli was not sent for forensic examination since the accused had disclosed that he had hidden the Dabli after washing.

12. P.W. 8 (Ratnesh Kumar Mishra) has produced in Court the Dabli used in the murder which has been marked as Material Exhibit -I.

In cross-examination he has stated that he produced the Dabli from the Thana Malkhana on the orders of the Officer In-charge.

13. The statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 CrPC in which he has denied to be involved in the offence.

14. Md. Zaid Ahmed, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that Laxmi Narayan Sharma who is an injured witness has not been examined by the prosecution. It has been submitted that there are vital contradictions in the evidence of the witnesses. He has also submitted that the incident had occurred on account of a quarrel between the deceased and the appellant as both were drunk and, therefore, at best a case under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the appellant.

15. Mr. Vishwanath Roy, learned A.P.P. has argued that several eye-witness accounts depicts that it was the appellant who had committed the assault in an indiscriminate fashion leading to the death of Sambhu Singh. He has also submitted that the postmortem report corroborates the manner of assault attributed to the appellant.

16. We have considered the rival submissions and have also perused the Lower Court Records.

17. The Fardbeyan of the informant reveals an assault by the appellant on Laxmi Narayan Singh and when Sambhu Singh tried to intervene he was assaulted with a Dabli which resulted in his death on the spot. P.W.s - 1, 2 and 3 are the eye-witnesses to the occurrence who had seen the appellant committing assault upon Sambhu Singh with a Dabli. The postmortem report is indicative of the brutal manner of assault as several incised wounds were found on the person of the deceased. Though Laxmi Narayan Sharma has not been examined by the prosecution but P.W. - 7 has stated that he had recorded the statement of Laxmi Narayan Sharma and sent him to the hospital for treatment. The manner of assault and its

-6- Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 86 of 2016

brutality, the weapon used all points to the fact that it was not an act at the spur of the moment but a premeditated one. It was the appellant who had initiated the occurrence by using abusive language and then by assaulting Sambhu Singh had done him to death. A Dabli was also recovered on the disclosure of the appellant from inside the bushes and though the same was not sent for forensic examination but its recovery is an additional circumstance which corroborates the ocular evidence as well as the findings of the postmortem report.

18. In view of the discussions made hereinabove, we come to the conclusion that the learned trial court had rightly appreciated the materials available on record and accordingly we do not find any reason to interfere with the judgement and order of conviction and sentence dated 14.10.2015 (sentence passed on 15.10.2015) by Sri Peeyush Kumar, learned Additional Sessions Judge - V, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur in Sessions Trial No. 323 of 2010 and this appeal, therefore, stands dismissed.

(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.)

(Ambuj Nath, J.)

High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi Dated, the 4th day of August, 2022.

Umesh/NAFR